Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 June	27 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hongwei Li

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by User:Hongwei0921, who is almost certainly the subject of this article. Almost all of the Google search results are for different people by the same name. Furthermore, this article was nominated for speedy deletion twice; its creator removed the tags. If the subject is indeed notable, then it would be best if we started over. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a pretty clear keep as, for starters, he is in multiple museum collections. For example the Art Institute of Chicago has some of his work. When I see collection(s), I generally figure they are notable as it is hard to get into collections. Also, we have a policy to the same effect (
talk) 07:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep. Additionally, this article has been posted on ITN:RD, and had already been reviewed for notability at that forum. (non-admin closure). Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etika

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

^📞 22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^📞 22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^📞 22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Passes the GNG (even before his disapperance and death). ENT doesn't override GNG, and NYOUTUBE is an essay. --Masem (t) 22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much contributions to the field of entertainment.
^📞 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Doesn't matter for the GNG. As it says for BLP, "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.", so requiring ENT to be met is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I strongly oppose this as I created the page and there are MANY notable and good references so I don't even know why this is a discussion. The page is trending on Wikipedia and should be kept up.
^📞 23:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The essay
^📞 23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also why did you copy my signature? If you reply here, please
^📞 23:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose as per

talk) 23:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - clearly passes

WP:GNG, the subject in the article still meets criteria n°2 and possibly n°3. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose this article has good references, is trending, and the person in question is a very popular figure. I don't see anything wrong with the article at all. Seems like this deletion proposal is racially motivated, if you ask me. 23:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.42.34 (talk)

Can we not with the racism accusations? Even if the nomination may be poorly justified (which I agree, mind you), a proper debate is taking place and jumping to the conclusion that this AfD nomination is "racially motivated" is not the way to respond and it comes across as ad hominem. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I am not a racist. Please stop making baseless accusations.
^📞 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep appears notable. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per letcreate123. --Battle Salmon (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can stay, it has plenty of reliable citations for it to stay up. Subscriber count shouldn't determine weather an article should stay.
talk) 00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I should believe this article shouldn't be deleted as readers, especially most of his followers on Youtube, can read his bibliography and I should consider it staying here in the article space. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For readers of Wikipedia, like myself, there are many other YouTubers that have articles here for viewers and fans. At the time of his death, fans across social media paid numerous tributes and became trending. As he had a large fan base, deleting this is considered as disrespectful by not keeping his legacy alive. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relists there is no consensus and with no comments since the 16 June I don't think that a further relist is likely to change the situation. Just Chilling (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phorum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable Clnreee (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A brief check of the books link indicates sources the nom. has not addressed in the nomination indicating lack of
WP:BEFORE and generic use of not notable. There is concern for a 10+ year article with many contributors it is placed through PROD->AfD with no attempt to tag issues first or notify previous contributors and seemingly little neutral attempt to improve it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete. Clnreee (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete. Clnreee (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failure demonstrate to follow

WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And still, no one has provided any references to support notability. This is a clear delete based on lack of notability. Clnreee (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now possibly scummering the Pavlor who has kindly pointed out two relevant sources nicely in support of

WP:GNG; It is significant enough to have made this and related security reports. the MySQL forums is significant. It is a product of the era perhaps the first decade of the millenium when it was notable and we must mindset to that time. If it was a paper product it would be gone some considerable time ago. But the article as it stands has problems ... (in fact I have never seen an article that has got away with a citations it has used for so long ... plus undeclared coi editing and it and needs cleanup, improvement and updating) ... which I am in the process of performing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Only independent source with broader coverage of the article subject I found so far is this book: [1] (ca 15? pages from p. 623 are devoted to phorum). Other than that only passing mentions in RS, or coverage on sites with unclear reliability (pro-linux.de: [2]). Pavlor (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks especially for the book, I've added the chapter 24 on Phorum case study (security) to further reading in the interim. With the book being dated 1999 that was at the early point in Phorum's life ... and I'd note the CVE's raised against Phorum later ... [3]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No resources to establish notability (I tried to find them and update the article, but I failed).Charmk (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zander Bleck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non

notable musician. Charting was for Nasseri not Bleck. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- As per
Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The sole charted single cited acknowledges him as "featured" vocalist, but per nomination, the credit belongs to others. Otherwise, sources are either promotional or insignificant, not RS. The only two reputable sources are USA Today and Billboard, but those articles are about his producer, who name checks this artist, but the coverage is not about him. ~~Seems to be an up and comer with junk coverage, but until there are the requisite significant sources and legitimate stand alone achievement, probably~~
~~WP:TOOSOON~~. (Ooops. On second look, I see the single and major producer association was 7 to 10 years ago.. Nothing "too soon" about that.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge the Article. The person is not notable and also didn't pass
WP:NMUSICIAN. But I think it could merge with a main article such as Jimmy Iovine or..., because the subject coverage by many sources.Forest90 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can't see anything,
Getting the attention of famous people isn't enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets GNG in addition to the magazine cover and subject's vocals were on a song that charted on Billboard Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. A magazine cover does not satisfy the notability requirements of
independent sources. The subjects vocals on the song do not appear to be the subject of the article and it is hard to get past "Charting was for Nasseri not Bleck" that has not been countered. Might would consider a "Merge" but awaiting some consensus that AFD is the place for such consideration. Otr500 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profound Aesthetic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article meets

WP:NCORP. While it boasts some high profile RS in the references section, the actual content of those articles is rather threadbare as far as coverage of the subject is concerned. I was able to find some more coverage online, but it seems similarly fleeting: routine announcements of new clothing lines (without any real analysis of said clothing), some name-checking in profiles of models. The only articles I came across with any substantial coverage have independence issues. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
notable. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Rosguill. Trivial coverage not rising to
CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Delphine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

WP:NBIO or the now-discontinued WP:PORNBIO. Sources used on the article are not RS, cursory google search leads to sources from Metro, but mostly user-generated or blog content, not enough to meet GNG in my view. Bkissin (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, She has lots of sources for notability including:

Newsweek (also on
WP:RSP
as reliable)

Digg

Junkee

Mashable

Business Insider

Insider

Oh yeah, and don't forget the videos on YouTube that have made millions of views. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the article needs more fleshing out (she was a major contributor at the peak of

talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Clearly doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and thus doesn't meet
^📞 22:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Lack of
talk) 12:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment
WP:BLP1E is often misunderstood. Three conditions must be met for it to apply. The second is that the person is a low-profile individual, which doesn't mean what you might think. Wikipedia defines low-profile individual in this context as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention". Her trolling was seeking attention, not trying to avoid it. People who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. BLP1E doesn't apply in this case. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Thanks for the correction. I've amended my comment.
talk) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I agree with the
WP:TOOSOON comment, I feel like if we wait half a year, (as she will only get more popular), then she'll have more requirments for an article. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Doesn't pass current wiki notability guidelines but that's a indictment of Wikipedia's outdated approach to keeping track of the new wave of entertainers (internet culture figures, just like actors in the early 20th century). Any other field and in any other time if any other person had close to four million dedicated followers, they'd be a entertainer of note. The fact that this article has close to 13k views in four days proves she holds interest among our readers, but there's no way to adequately cover her because there's just no sources, which is a indictment on the media too. There's no solution to this as the sources don't exist to adequately write a article which means we just have to accept being behind the times. GuzzyG (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold that thought, PewDiePie did a video with her in the thumbnail with close to 4.8 million views in less then 13 hours. News sources will start coming in once the video gets 10+ million views. We might get this article kept. Please just keep it a little longer. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article won't be deleted until June 3rd at the earliest. You can always keep a copy of the article in

talk) 06:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Fails
talk) 11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~'''Delete'''~~ Fails
WP:USELESS Please delete this. She only got famous for stealing content. She's sexualizing children and stole other girls nude photos and sold them as her own. She makes fun of dead animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.135.153 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Non-vote disabled, as IPs or even
SPAs we are supposed to contribute facts, not UW collections. –84.46.53.150 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Leaning Keep This person is a notable troll. The article needs some more flesh from sources. But the notability of the party has been established by non-trivial mentions in multiple articles per above.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - famous for one thing, which she didn't even create. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem good enough, this is clearly a well known person as she has nearly 4 million followers on Instagram. Passes
WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There simply isn't enough coverage to create a biography about this person. Basic facts like her birthday, residence, etc. can't be verified. The creation of her pornhub account was covered by some strong sources but that's
WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As it stands currently: 5 Delete, 2 Keeps with 1 Leaning. Rough consensus on deletion has been achieved it seems.
talk) 14:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - she is officially an entrepreneur with selling her bath water... her absurd stunts should fully allow for a Wikipedia page in order for regular people to find out more about who she is, where she is from, and possibly how or why she does what she does / is able to attain such success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1805:22AA:3044:6073:9D16:F804 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding another independent source, Vox's Polygon. https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/3/20679112/belle-delphine-instagram-bath-water-troll -- discussing the merits of Belle's work as performance art. Whether you think it's nonsense trolling or not, the cultural relevance and notability of her oeuvre continues to expand. If we put aside our biases and go based on policies alone, I don't see why she wouldn't be on here. Though, perhaps
WP:TOOSOON, let's see how the article develops and if it turns into one worth keeping. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per
independent sources is not an indictment against Wikipedia for being "outdated". It is a daily affirmation that "if" something is notable it will have received coverage, according to policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this rubbish. Not notable and no significant coverage. She has contributed nothing to humanity or South Africa other than being an attention seeker. I don't know who created this nonsense. There are many people around the world who have contributed so much to humanity yet cannot even get a Wikipedia page. Yet, we are inundated almost every day with new articles created by certain boys/men in the West about the women they fancy. What is this world coming to? Attention seeking does not equate to notability.Tamsier (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet
WP:NBIO Charmk (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Roach

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Roach has never played in a major tournament. Fails

WP:GNG due to an utter lack of sources on the player. Dougal18 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it's not notable and don't meet
WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urban dog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear what this is supposed to be, a tautological definition combining an adjective and a noun is not a notable stand-alone topic. Just because someone wrote a animal care book helping city dwellers with "introducing a dog in the home, behavior, socialization, training, walking with a leash, common problems, and leaving the dog alone." does not mean this is an independently notable or encyclopedic subject. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak redirect to Dog#As_pets. I expect that the author will defend this with his trademarked "I googled a book with this in the title" argument, but my scan of at least the applicable scientific literature [4] would indicate that the term generally crops up as applied to more specific topics that alreday have articles (Dog bite and Rabies cover about 3/4 of those). If there is much to say on this particular topic that cannot be either treated in such places or at dog, then fine, but I doubt it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was created as a response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Dogs in urban environments. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTDICTIONARY. SpinningSpark 22:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article was started as a quick response to a RfD, as explained above. It was started as a

editing policy

:

Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts.

The reference to a dictionary is quite mistaken. The topic here is not a particular word or phrase. Our policy

WP:NOTDICTIONARY

explains that

One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

So, what we have here is confusion generating disruption. The topic is clearly notable as several books have been cited about various aspects of the topic and there are many more sources out there. What is expected in this situation is collaboration in expanding the topic, as requested by the {{stub}} template, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

To explain the matter further, let's page @Uncle G: who wrote many of these policies and so best understands them.

Andrew D. (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolol you can't just say "please help" and therefore the existence of your vague nothingburger is justified...I wish this were an actual dictionary definition, that would be more useful than this since I don't know what it is. Does an urban dog have specific different characteristics from a

WP:DRAFT in response to the RFD; you could have also requested collaboration on a talk page first. Someone writing a book helping urban dog owners keep a pet in an apartment does not distinguish an "urban dog" as a notable unique concept, and the other sources are quite clearly about stray/free-ranging dogs or street dogs, and you made no effort to clarify what makes this warrant a separate article rather than just taking the names of the first hits in your Google Books search. Reywas92^Talk 04:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per Andrew D. ∯WBG^converse 03:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear why urban dogs in general would be a separate topic from pet dogs and street dogs. Although several sources have been provided, they seem to be the result of googling "urban dog" and don't point to a single cohesive topic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Although several sources have been provided, they seem to be the result of googling "urban dog" and don't point to a single cohesive topic.- yes, that's the article creator's usual MO at AfD. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- "An urban dog is a dog in a town or city". Well, duh. This is an exercise in stating the obvious but nothing useful. Are these stray dogs? Pets of people living in towns? Guide dogs for vision impaired inner city workers? No idea. The article doesn't say and was never intended to convey anything useful. It's just the result of finding a handful of books with the word "urban" and/or "dog" in the title, not looking at them, and then citing them in an 11 word microstub. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this were actually a thing, it would still fail on the grounds of being an un-nottable
WP:NEOLOGISM. But this is not a thing, this is the result of googling two words and noting that they are sometimes used in conjunction with one another. None of these sources indicate why this is a concept that is separate, and needs a split article, from any of the other topics already noted in some of the responses above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I also questioned the notability and validity of this term as a separate subject when I noticed the article was created via the discussion that Tavix linked. (I am the nominator of that discussion.) Seems I'm not alone in this concern. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion
A7: no effort at all has been made to credibly indicate why this is a significant topic. Reminds me of there are birds. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- WP:WIHS#A7. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Okay, then
    A1 no context. "A dog in a city" is insufficient context around which to write an encyclopedia article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  - Ha ha, arguing over guideline smallprint won't convince anyone to save this article. What's your next article Andrew? Dead horse? That's been a disambiguation page far too long with no primary topic to take the title. SpinningSpark 13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already started
      hounds here and I have plenty of other things to do. "Every dog has its day". Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

free-ranging urban dogs.
So there is the actual science for you, from doing a little more than putting two words together and actually reading what the searches turned up.
Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I believe the article as currently written is eligible for A3 deletion. If some of the references have any useful content, adding it to the article should make this an easy keep. If not, this should be deleted (or turned into a DAB page, if there is a need to have something at this name).
π, ν) 20:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There probably is. Notice all of the other names in what I wrote earlier and read
Talk:Free-ranging urban dog#Move to "Street dog". Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, now if this was the article Urbane dog ie bassets, weimars, standard poodles, it would definitely notable... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above ,
WP: Notdictionary Alex-h (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the Article because it's not meet
WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Forest90 (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. It's a valid search term but has little content to add. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I love dogs, fails
WP:NOTDICTIONARY. William2001^(talk) 22:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, I can't see much published that discusses "urban dogs" as a concept in itself - Feral dogs, pet dogs, stray dogs, and working dogs are clearly discussed in other articles, but I just can't see a significant number of sources that are going to discuss the vague crossover of pet dogs, street dogs and working dogs that happen to live in cities. This is not a useful article topic without that specific coverage. It's just a vague dictionary definition restatement of a concept - while that concept clearly exists, it does not exist in a form that a useful encyclopedia article could be written about. ~ mazca ^talk 12:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gainsight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. References are nothing more than normal press releases Jupitus Smart 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:SIGCOV in the case of Bloomberg, the source being mostly a database entry. Bkissin (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NCORP. No significant coverage. William2001^(talk) 22:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Enter Shikari. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rou Reynolds

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the acts he is with outside of Enter Shikari are notable enough to pass GNG. Thus, he is only notable for Enter Shikari and notability for one group does not constitute an article.

Not to mention it's in poor condition anyway. I know that's not a reason to delete, but it doesn't do us any good to keep it if it can't be verified. I'll take a look at those later if nobody beats me to it, but I suspect that the sources for those aren't really that high grade.

To be clear, my aim with this AfD is to ask that it be redirected to Enter Shikari.

oops 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
reliable coverage in their own right. Therefore everything notable about the guy is already described at the Enter Shikari article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Enter Shikari. The group has sourcing can support an article, this individual singer does not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Valdivia

Laura Valdivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non
bombarded with a lot of sources but not multiple that are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination - non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom.--
(T) 12:42, 01 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Elwell

Don Elwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP supported by 0 independent reliable sources. The citations are a mix of blogs, publications from the subject's own publishing operation, and a student newspaper. I found nothing to support notability in my
G7 and the editor did not pursue the matter further. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I did find (Revolving feast of plays offered in dinner theater,
WP:CREATIVE. (feel free to ping me to reconsider if you manage to source it).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Hudson Hotel

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hendrik Hudson Hotel

Articles for deletion/Hendrik Hudson Hotel (2nd nomination)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is on a hotel that never actually existed. It was planned, but never constructed. The only source that talks about it, which is what the entirety of the information on the article comes from, is a single blurb from the New York Times which is nothing more than an announcement of the project, and is not enough to pass the
Hendrik Hudson and have nothing to do with this building at all. Searching for more sources on this non-existent hotel brings up nothing but mentions of a different, completely unrelated hotel that bore the same name. And while the argument could be made that this article could be re-purposed to be about that one instead, there is nothing I can find to indicate any notability for that location either. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator - Uncle G has demonstrated below that this case isn't as clear cut as I initially believed, so I am withdrawing this nomination.Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The different hotel, that very much does exist, at 380 Riverside Drive, is the one that Salwen 1989, p. 127 claims this plan eventually turned into, when it was finally built 10 years later. Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gray, Christopher (1996-12-29). "A Decision to Save a Lump of Terra Cotta and Brick". New York Times
.

Salwen, Peter (1989). Upper West Side Story: A History and Guide. Peter Salwen.
ISBN 9780896598942
.

Crain, Esther (2009-09-23). "Riverside Drive's Hendrik Hudson apartments". Ephemeral New York.

Alpern, Andrew (1992). "The Hendrik Hudson at 380 Riverside Drive". Luxury Apartment Houses of Manhattan: An Illustrated History. Dover Architecture Series. Courier Corporation. pp. 77–83.
ISBN 9780486273709
.
Comment The different hotel I was referring to in my nomination was actually not the one your links are referring to, but to the one in Troy, New York that bears the same name. I actually did not find the links you provided, which seem to indicate that the plans for the 18 floor hotel were scrapped to instead build an 8 story apartment complex with the same name. At this point, I'm leaning towards Withdrawing my nomination, and substantially rewriting, expanding, and renaming (as the final building was apparently never referred to as a "hotel" in its name) this article to cover the actual final building, based on your sources. But I will leave this AFD open for a bit longer, to see if any other editors have any comments on its notability. Nice work finding this information, by the way. I had only been searching for information regarding the proposed hotel without success, and had not considered that the proposal had transformed so radically to the final building. Rorshacma (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started with the ignorant question Is there actually a building on Riverside Drive called the Hendrik Hudson? ☺
Personally, I think that Salwen has made a somewhat tenuous connection, and were I rewriting this I would include the 1897 plan merely to show that Johnson and Kahn were not the first to have such an idea. Once you get to Alpern 1992 you will realize how much of a potential article there is here anyway. The 1907 pictures in the MCNY collection indicated by Alpern I would expect to be public domain now, and would be worth chasing up by a Wikipedia writer with access, for starters.
See Penrhiw Priory (AfD discussion) for another building with history that needs attention and that Wikipedia had us believe was (just) a hotel, by the way.
Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Commission (Ghana)

Energy Commission (Ghana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no inherent notability for government agencies and, as we established in
WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google Books finds no references. A BEFORE on Google News finds limited, fleeting, and purely incidental references that don't cover the organization itself, merely mentioning "XYZ was approved by the Energy Commissions" and so forth. (Note that there is a different and separate Ghanian body called the Atomic Energy Commission.) Chetsford (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A GF attempt to add additional sources underscores my last comment, that the handful of additional references available on BEFORE are not about the organization itself, they merely mention it. For example, this reference [5], etc. While a laudable effort, this does not represent
WP:SIGCOV as intended by our guidelines. While the sources prove the Ghanian Energy Commission exists, mere proof of existence is not proof of notability. Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I generally don't vote per nom but you've said it better than I could. Praxidicae (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The agency is a major energy regulator in Ghana, covering electricity, clean energy and sustainable development. The commission is also has key regulatory oversight of the following national agencies so it cannot be considered an obscure parastatal:

Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC)

Ghana National Gas Company (GNGC)

Ghana Grid Company (GRIDCo)

Electricity Company of Ghana
(ECG)

You might as well as nominate the
talk
) 20: 38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

While this may be true, an organization's real-life importance is not synonymous with its WP notability. Often the two intersect, meaning major organizations tend to generate the type of
WP:N. However, WP ultimately evaluates organizations based on factors unrelated to its statutory characterization. Chetsford (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep In the first place,the article was nominated for speedy deletion because of potential copyright infringement as per the initial deletion request explanation. This has been duly corrected.Ataavi (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the actual crux of the deletion nomination nor does the nom even mention it. Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major regulatory body in Ghana, managing all forms of energy distribution and development in the country. It is comparable to Ontario Power Generation. It would benefit from expansion, and might want to look to the OPG article as a template. Risker (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Risker. A major state agency is per se notable. We should keep this as part of the Energy law series of articles. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Risker.Tamsier (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree that this is "some obscure national and sub-national" agency. William2001^(talk) 22:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zofia Leśniowska

Zofia Leśniowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable military member and
WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be coverage of her, including conspiracy theories involving her father's death (frm Google translate of the sources). Polish Wikipedia has article with more references> PamD 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable albeit in a minor way in her own right. W C M_email 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Present coverage in multiple sources.--Darwinek (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this should never have come to afd as there is an obvious merge/redirect target of her father, that should have been discussed on the talkpage, but that is by the by as she meets
WP:GNG with the sources contained in the article and the others at the Polish WP article. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep, plenty of in-depth independent coverage (short biography present for example in Jacek Piotrowski (2004). Dzienniki czynności Prezydenta RP Władysława Raczkiewicza, 1939-1947. Wyd. Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. p. 391.
ISBN 978-83-229-2566-9.) and sources already present in the article, few more on pl wiki. Certainly notable enough for her own bio entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep. She's out of BIO1E since she's also covered in the context of aiding her father (and not just in the context of the crash and the missing body). While there are a great deal of sources here out there covering her, many of them are brief and coverage is primarily in the context of assisting her father during the war. I'm leaning keep due to the number of references and due to some of them - e.g. this one being in depth. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first thought
WP:NOTINHERITED too, but there seems to be non-trivial coverage about her too. William2001^(talk) 22:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nom withdrawn , user requests it to be placed in draft. ... discospinster _talk 13:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putzy

Putzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria for
WP:TOOSOON. ... discospinster _talk 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet
WP:NBAND yet. The radio coverage cited is just internet radio, not a major national network. No significant RS coverage of their album release. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Having talked with Discospinster talk We will upload spanish references so the wiki is complete. Please do not delete or return to draft. Thanks and have a nice day. User: Freeinformationfront

Delete - Nothing in the article shows it meeting the
WP:NBAND. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Return to draft please so I can add references and work on the article.[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftified because this was also done for the band's article at
WP:A9 that makes the band's albums ineligible for their own articles. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Curses (Putzy album)

Curses (Putzy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this recently-released album. Some user-submitted reviews and blogs but no significant discussion by major review sites either in English or Spanish. ... discospinster _talk 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Putzy. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has been done, please review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putzy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeinformationfront (talk • contribs)
I’ve undone it - please don’t merge while there is a active discussion with no clear conclusion yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the merge - why did some one type my username in to make it look as I was typing one of the above comments? Vorbee (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Looking at the history of this page, it looks as if my name was copied by Freeinformationfront - a Wikipedian whose username is in red letters, so does not have a userpage. Vorbee (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve fixed his signature error. And for the record, I had already known he did it, not you. I didn’t notice he signed it wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tam Chun Hei

Tam Chun Hei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a junior badminton player who has not won any major titles. Fails
talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

oppose the subject is 26 years old, not a junior player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory that every 26 year old have an article. The concern is: there is seem not many news coverage about him, to pass
WP:GNG, the wikipedia guideline for inclusion criteria. Matthew hk (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The sport categories the subject played was listed as junior.
talk) 01:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep ~ as per #1 and #2 point in the badminton section of
WP:NSPORT. The article needs to be rewritten though.Csgir (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Participated in
WP:NBADMINTON. --94rain ^Talk 04:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep ~ as per #1 and #2 point in the badminton section of
WP:NSPORT. Please use Special:WhatLinksHere/Tam_Chun_Hei, there for instance 2017 BWF World Championships – Mixed doubles, Badminton at the 2018 Asian Games – Men's team, 2019 Sudirman Cup group stage, 2013 Badminton Asia Championships. Or search for "Tam Chun Hei" on google.com - 19600 results. Florentyna (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Summer Paralympic Games. Clear consensus to redirect. I am not also redirecting 2024 Summer Paralympics since that page has some sourcing and, as a late comment, there has been no opportunity for discussion. It should be separately listed if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Summer Paralympics

2028 Summer Paralympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls under
^📞 12:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^📞 12:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^📞 12:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I have a few concerns that we might get information about the event and have to recreate the page. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that. At least not until two or three years before the event.
^📞 22:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Changing my opinion to Redirect to Summer Paralympic Games per others. Probably a better idea than deletion. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Summer Paralympic Games, and then protect from recreation until at some point in the future reliable sources begin to appear about the event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to
^📞 21:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Summer Paralympic Games, and then protect from recreation until at some point in the future reliable sources begin to appear about the event. Kevinhanit (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:CRYSTAL. William2001^(talk) 22:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the Summer Paralympic Games. May I also add the 2024 Summer Paralympics into this article as it is also in the same boat. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to
WP:NGEO would apply either. With respect to The Grid's argument, if some evidence of this place's notability comes up we could revisit the close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

St. John, Florida

St. John, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm proposing a deletion and redirect to Gadsden County, Florida as I can't find any reliable sources that talk about this community and it doesn't appear to be notable as a standalone article. I boldly redirected but the creator has objected. tl;dr fails
WP:NGEO. Praxidicae (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No mention of this place on GNIS. The article links to a map, but there's no mention of this place on any of the maps. The links in the article are either dead, or don't mention this place. I tried to speedy delete this article thinking it was a hoax. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Rewrite - The description of this community seems to place it north of both Quincy and Gretna, which means the geotag for it is wrong. The dead links in the article are proof that the internet is not forever, but we can always try to archive them. -------User:DanTD (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in hard sources too (books, newspapers) and found very little about this St. John Florida, it's just a small community, basically a community association. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Slightly, off topic, I looked at some maps of Gadsden County, Florida, and I found a lot of communities that were excluded from the navbox. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an interesting publication I found that was on the county's website through the Internet Archive: [6] - page 6 has a passing mention of the city of St. John and this pertains to US 90. Strangely the description: Mt. Pleasant borders the cities of Gretna and St. John, Florida, as well as Chattahoochee. Looking at Mount Pleasant, Florida, the second sentence in the lede paragraph was added by an IP user in 2010 (well, it might be the account here as well looking at the edit history). The guide looks to be something official by the county here. Maybe it's a former boom town given this is the county where people bought Coca Cola shares when they were cheap (and before its popularity). I'm assuming good faith editing and there has to be something there. – The Grid (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the county. Only passing mentions. William2001^(talk) 22:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andromo

Andromo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This
WP:PROMOTIONAL article by a pseudo-SPA on an app developer lacks any RS except a single, questionable reference to androidauthority.com. A BEFORE fails to find anything that could be added. Chetsford (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not a promotional. As you can clearly see, I just discussed this software company's contribution to the development of mobile apps in the last decade. The fact that I could only find a few non-promotional references doesn't mean that it is invalid. Why do I think this is worth being on Wikipedia? It's for the same reasons Google is here. It's not my place to promote a business on Wikipedia. If there is something you think looks promotional in my article, kindly point it out and I'll happily update my work. Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information rather than assumptions. Thanks! :) --Mwengengona (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information Hmmm. Okay. The facts are you made exactly the minimum number of minor edits (10) to achieve autoconfirmed status and then created an article on a company sourced almost entirely to the company's own website, then stopped editing on WP entirely until said article was nominated for deletion at which point you reappeared.
WP:DUCK applies. Chetsford (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Article seriously under-sourced. Creator would have been perhaps advised to go via
WP:AfC but result would likely have been the same.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Blatantly promotional. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Journal (magazine)

Hudson Journal (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a substantially similar version of an article previously deleted by unanimity at AfD (see original nom by User:Randykitty of Avenue Journal (magazine) (AfD discussion)), with the exception that it is now operating under a different name. Its only reference is a Worldcat listing and a BEFORE finds no further references. Chetsford (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is very similar. The older article of course did not have the claim about a relaunch that is, coincidentally, a few days from now. Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not passing GNG and otherwise lacking notability. I do admire that they link to a WorldCat entries which shows no libraries hold the publication. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahn curve

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Rahn curve

Rahn curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article gives undue attention to an economic theory that is not well-known and is not publicly defined. After researching the topic, the only references or explanations I could find were from lobbying and policy interest groups. There is no rigorous definition of the curve, its underlying economic assumptions, or an empirical evidence of its merits. Its publication on wikipedia therefore cannot go further than baselessly popularizing the concept and is therefore against WP:NOTESSAY Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics, Social science, Mathematics, and Politics related deletion discussions. Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Well there's
Rahn+Fox, and Scully).
So … where did you actually look when you researched this?
Uncle G (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Brimelow, Peter (1993-03-15). "Why the Deficit Is the Wrong Number". Forbes. pp. 72–82.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Samavati, Hedayeh; Dilts, David A.; Adilov, Nodir; Kim, Myeong Hwan (2016). "U.S. Economic Growth: Rahn Curve and Components of Government Spending" (PDF). Journal of Applied Business and Economics. 18 (3). North American Business Press: 11–15.
ISSN 1857-8721
.

Altunca, Faruk; Aydınb, Celil (2013-10-10). "The Relationship between Optimal Size of Government and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 92: 66–75.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.639
.

Miller, J. Corey. "Using the Armey Curve to Measure the Size of Government" (Document). University Research Center, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

S2CID 52025809
.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I relisted this discussion early. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
^📞 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. A quick look at gbooks (I can't be bothered to list any of them, but I wonder if the nom even looked) shows that this is discussed. Whether or not the curve is ill-defined and the claims baseless is entirely irrelevant to whether we should have an article (but if that can be cited, it should most definitely be included in the page). Claiming that such a short stub is an essay is also hard to swallow, so I'm seeing no basis for deletion from either perspective. SpinningSpark 22:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong venue. I'm closing this as an inappropriate nomination. You can achieve what you want by just redirecting the page. There really is no valid reason for deleting the history of the page. SpinningSpark 18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Stranglehold

Operation Stranglehold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Operation Stranglehold is a stub cited to a self-published source. The operation is better covered in Operation Raindance, which describes Stranglehold's origin as a followup to Raindance. With a more complete description with reliable cites, Raindance renders Stranglehold unnecessary. As the original author of both articles, I believe I have a right to request this as a speedy deletion. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 05:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenox Tweneboa

Lenox Tweneboa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails
WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a professional league with him only playing in the NSW Super League which is the second tier of Australian football. HawkAussie (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Subject has not play for any top tier club as per
talk) 06:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Great name. WP:GNG, we can recreate if he ever plays in a professional league, though it seems unlikely. SportingFlyer T·C 06:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, if verified - Potentially does pass NFOOTY - 21apps(*) for Yadanarbon in 2013 in the
talk) 11:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Here is an extract from a TV broadcast showing him playing as number 16 in a
Kanbawza F.C. under the name Lenox. He plays here as well in a July 23, 2013 match against Yangon United F.C.. Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete., Fails
WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This does state he played for Yadanarbon F.C. in 2013.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of monitors with QHD display

List of monitors with QHD display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No encyclopedic value. Just a list of monitors. Frood 04:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Frood 04:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:LISTN. I would not oppose a redirect to QHD, but given the relatively low number of backlinks that's not the most necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not a
shopping catalog and is not consumer reports either. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lack of multiple (discovered, not presumed) sources that meet
WP:GNG requirements. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

TinyButStrong

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/TinyButStrong

Articles for deletion/TinyButStrong (2nd nomination)

TinyButStrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis that sources like this do exist and there are probably more hidden behind web.archive and the like. I'm rather persuaded by a lot of the keep arguments in the previous afd while also having to acknowledge that I can't find anything beyond what the original author linked in that first afd.
chat·edits) 00:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_June_26&oldid=1142613676"~~